Wasps v Bath

[KieranW]

All in all a good match with some nice rugby played by both. It would be fair to say that it wasn't one of Andrew Small's best performances though. Any thoughts on the match? Specifically the YCs to Vardnell and Day? I don't think there can be any dispute on the Abendanon YC.

 

[pedr]

I think it may be an argument that - if video replays are going to be allowed for foul play issues - the referee should be the one making the decisions. I don't think that Small or his ARs would have come to a yellow card if they'd seen the Varndell tackle clearly enough to be certain of their opinion on it. As they then showed with the Day decision, this means that the TMO's view on the threshold for cards can have an impact on the game.

The NFL has the head referee make the decisions about replay - and its replay rules do not allow most judgment calls to be changed in replay so in theory it's less necessary to have the same person making all the final decisions. In rugby this would have the advantage that the person making the decision has the additional information of what the referee himself has seen.

(I'd also follow the NFL system of requiring real-time ruling based on what the officials saw live before starting the replay process, with that decision changed only if the replay clearly shows that it was wrong. That could result in fewer tries which would, presumably, be given in matches without replay on the informed opinion of the referee being ruled out because there's no video evidence showing the ball grounded.)

 

[OB..]

The NFL has the head referee make the decisions about replay - and its replay rules do not allow most judgment calls to be changed in replay so in theory it's less necessary to have the same person making all the final decisions.

Every week you see calls on the field being overturned.

I suspect one crucial factor is that the officials know that during the following week ALL decisions will be reviewed by a panel of former officials, and on-field officials graded accordingly. Those with the highest gradings will get the best post-season marches.

(I'd also follow the NFL system of requiring real-time ruling based on what the officials saw live before starting the replay process, with that decision changed only if the replay clearly shows that it was wrong.

That has always been my argument.

That could result in fewer tries which would, presumably, be given in matches without replay on the informed opinion of the referee being ruled out because there's no video evidence showing the ball grounded.)

I don't follow. If the referee awarded the try, then it would need clear video evident to disallow it.

Currently the NFL automatically reviews all scoring plays.

 

[smeagol]

Every week you see calls on the field being overturned.

I suspect one crucial factor is that the officials know that during the following week ALL decisions will be reviewed by a panel of former officials, and on-field officials graded accordingly. Those with the highest gradings will get the best post-season marches.

That has always been my argument.
I don't follow. If the referee awarded the try, then it would need clear video evident to disallow it.

Currently the NFL automatically reviews all scoring plays.

The issue I have with the NFL system is that on 50/50 calls, a decision has to be made, then clear evidence is necessary to overturn. If the call is that close, why does a decision have to be made before the video evidence is used?

 

[OB..]

The issue I have with the NFL system is that on 50/50 calls, a decision has to be made, then clear evidence is necessary to overturn. If the call is that close, why does a decision have to be made before the video evidence is used?

Because 50/50 smears into 55/45, then into 60/40 ... It is much simpler to have the current rule than have subsequent arguments. The impressive thing to me is how accurate the officials are.

 

[pedr]

I think I was a little unclear, sorry - the NFL doesn't allow replay regarding personal fouls, whether forward progress was stopped, and other decisions which are judgement calls (a forward pass in American Football is one which moves towards the opponent's goal line so - with the lines on the field - is considered a matter of fact not opinion). My point was that it's even more important for one person to make decisions where - as in the experimental TMO protocol - issues of foul play are covered by replay.

My point about tries is that I think a referee should award a try if he believes the ball was grounded - and replay should only change that if it shows that there was not a try, rather than the default position being no-try if the replay is inconclusive. (So I think we're agreeing!)

My problem with reviewing all scoring plays is that the no-score isn't automatically reviewed. Perhaps better for a replay official to monitor all scoring opportunities and start watching replays, indicating need for referee to stop and have a full review if there's a significant probability that a try was scored?

 

[Pinky]

At the moment, referees ask either "try/no try" or "any reason not to award the try" presumably depening on what he has seen of the scoring movement. So if the ref belives the ball was grounded, he would normally ask "any reason not to award".

 

[matty1194]

Having watched this game I think unfortunatley that Smalley got both decisions wrong, the first due to the TMO.

If you look at the angle that Varndell tackles and his position on the pitch, he procedes to drive at about 45 degrees in my eyes towards the sidelines and from when he makes the initial hit, he straightens his body which forces the Bath winger up and backwards, and yes he does end up with his hips higher however he lands under control on his back, shoulders and is not driven or dropped into the ground.

With regards the Day YC, contact in the air (YES) then lets go, until player touches ground then hauls him down, so if anything nothing more than a penalty for me, however Smalley forces himself to YC Day with the words,(sic) "i have to be consistent with the earlier call and card and you have to go". (Not the correct explanation, but all i can remember from Sunday's game).

 

[winchesterref]

Just watched the Varndell tackle, never a yellow. Tipped above horizontal yes, then corrected and brought back to ground on his back. How did the TMO/ref reach that decision?!

 

[Davet]

So, the moral of the tale is don't put yourself in a position where the ref may, in the heat of the moment, after a single look in real time, consider a card. for a spear tackle.

Don't even look like you are spear tackling and you won't have a problem.

 

[Robert Burns]

Is there a video link?

 

[TheBFG]

Is there a video link?

http://www.premiershiprugby.tv/?WT.mc_id=pr_video

try this, if (as usual my links don't work) try to google Aviva Prem and the videos are on there.

Have to day that the Day YC is a joke and as for the refs justification (sic. we cocked the first one up so i'm going to level things up by binning you too!) :nono:

 

[SilverMoon]

Varndell yellow - under the current IRB guidance and RFU trial protocol for TMO's there was little option than to go yellow. The ball carrier was lifted in the tackle, legs above horizontal. So we start at Red if he comes down on head, neck or shoulders or speared into the ground. None of these happened so we move to yellow as a sanction for the player being brought down onto his back. The TMO could have moved to penalty only had the ball carrier been lowered to the ground safely (no impact) or back onto his feet. None of the latter occurred so yellow was the only sanction. I suspect had the TMO been refereeing at the weekend and the same occurred he would have given a penalty only.

 

[winchesterref]

Since when is landing on your back considered unsafe? He was tipped initially, righted whether through his own action or TV's, and landed parallel.

 

[SilverMoon]

Since when is landing on your back considered unsafe? He was tipped initially, righted whether through his own action or TV's, and landed parallel.

I can't disagree - I am just quoting current protocol.

 

[winchesterref]

I appreciate that, sorry, just mean why can it not be worked back to a good tackle, play on?